"Like WSA, SQM, charlie123456 and other investors I long ago undertook due diligence in regards to these grubby greenmail attempts by jilted ones and determined that unless that they are paid to go away it was just matter of time before the cases were heard in the Wardens Court with the Warden recommending to the WA Minister of Mines that the annual expenditure commitment exemption applied for by the Company at the time, being on the 5th February 2016, be granted as well as the forfeiture application be dismissed, especially in regards to tenement M77/1080 (Earl Grey deposit).
Always was and will be a matter of course, based on eons of similar judgements with progressive expenditure amounts far exceeding the combined annual minimum requirements by almost a factor of two, the holding company at the time being in administration process and other precedents.
I've been doing background research though not yet as well or as deeply as you it seems @mistie.
I'm wondering where your spreadsheet data showing expenditure on M77/1080 comes from?
In trying to find relevant cases in the Warden's Court I input "Jeffrey Hull" and came across this decision http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Wardens-Court/2015WAMW18.pdf from 2015 in which a recommendation of forfeiture is made in Hull's favor against ASIC - though it was for an exploration licence not a mining lease.
This excerpt from the above case caught my attention because I'd been reading the Mining Act 1978 (esp sections 98, 99 and 100).
98 (5) says
"A recommendation (by the warden to the minister to forfeit) shall not be made under subsection (4A)
unless the warden is satisfied that the non-compliance with such requirements (expenditure conditions)
is, in the circumstances of the case, of sufficient gravity to justify the forfeiture".
I understand that in this case non-compliance is a fact (your spreadsheet data and other comments) so wondered what constitutes "sufficient gravity" and how that would be determined.
So to me it seems like the respondents (KDR's side) would have recently had the evidentiary burden of showing the warden that in this case the non-compliance though a fact was not of sufficient gravity.
This is where I suspect I am missing a chunk of research or a reference site that summarises such past cases perhaps in a review article or something.
I wonder if you can remember how you concluded that -
"eons of similar judgements with progressive expenditure amounts far exceeding the combined annual minimum requirements by almost a factor of two, the holding company at the time being in administration process and other precedents " ?
Would appreciate any sites or references you might remember that I can check out to reach the same conclusion you have.
If I am asking to much, fair enough, don't need to reply. But you might have the data easily available.
KDR Price at posting:
$1.35 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
